Jacob Hornberger is among the more principled of the Libertarian Party candidates, but one of his more prominent issues is his emphasis on open borders. Here is why Hornberger is wrong.
Many modern thinkers whom I respect – most specifically historian Tom Woods, Antiwar.com’s Scott Horton, comedian Dave Smith, and the venerable Ron Paul – are rallying behind Jacob Hornberger for the Libertarian Party’s nomination for president. The Future of Freedom Foundation founder and former trial attorney told Woods on a recent podcast that his theme is to bring “liberty back to America” and to stop the “welfare-warfare state bureaucracy that is strangling our lives.”
That sounds pretty darn good in theory. And considering that Hornberger has edited powerhouse books like “The Failure of America’s Foreign Wars,” “The Tyranny of Gun Control,” and “The Dangers of Socialized Medicine,” as well as written scathing treatises about the national-security state and the JFK assassination(and their relationship to one another), a red-pilled liberty-lover like myself could certainly find herself excited about his candidacy.
Hornberger, whose friends call him “Bumper,” opposes the Drug War and government schools. He’s against socialized medicine, saying boldly that we’ve got to ditch both Medicare and Medicaid. He’s non-interventionist, calling for an end to the “forever wars.” He believes life begins at conception. He has even fairly sympathetic views toward Dixie and the War for Southern Independence.
But what is it that’s at the top of Hornberger’s seemingly anti-establishment platform? “The war on immigrants,” he told Woods. It’s an “evil, immoral, destructive, deadly war that has produced a police state,” Hornberger commented, adding that he’d take his case straight to “Hispanic Americans.” Oh, how very woke of him.
What could be more establishment than cheering on state-sponsored demographic replacement and the division and disconnectedness it breeds? What could be more status-quo than using the hyperbolic “war” euphemism that big-government types always employ?
Maybe Hornberger believes in “magic soil” – that Murica and all its awesomeness and with all its industry, commercialism, and materialism can somehow transform foreigners from socialist and historically non-Christian lands into Constitutional scholars and rugged individualists just by virtue of stepping upon red-white-and-blue dirt. I mean, all that “economic liberty” will surely bring about social cohesion and foster peace, right?
Wrong. Capitalism (which most certainly is not the practiced economic system of US businesses and corporations and their globalist cohorts) cannot save “a nation” which has no “national” attributes. Without shared borders, language, customs, and faith, there is no “country” to which liberty can be brought back. Culture is the most essential matter (both currently and historically), which is precisely why I say it’s the illegal and legal immigration juggernaut that is “strangling our lives.” Everything else is secondary.
I don’t quote Yankee John Adams often, but I think he was correct when he wrote, “A Constitution of government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” And how was it lost? Deculturation.
The leader of the Austrian School of economic thought, Ludwig von Mises, “maintains that the creation of mixed-nation-states, resulting from the immigration of workers of a foreign nationality, ‘gives rise once again to all those conflicts that generally develop in polyglot territories’ and ‘to particularly characteristic conflicts between peoples,'” explains economist Joseph T. Salerno.
My Southron homeland has already been invaded, conquered, and reconstructed into a generic, polyglot blob of consumerism and immediacy. As far as the eye can see, there are Costcos, Dollar Generals, supermercados, ethnic restaurants, and microbreweries for the lulled-into-submission natives and transplants, both foreign and domestic. Meanwhile, community withers on the vine.
We’ve got plenty of stuff in every shape, size, color, and quality, and lots of cheap pricing, but it’s a pathetic non-neighborly existence where people still pine for fellowship and kinship. We have citizens who bond over products and stuff, not shared history. Governments and their state-protected mobs tear down ancestral symbols, and replace them with meaningless platitudes. Families splinter and spread out as to follow the highest-paying job and the next big promotion, moving to places where they know nothing of the traditions and history struggling not to be erased. But hey, at least they have a Trader Joe’s.
We’re already awash in carpet-bagging capitalism which decimates small towns and close-knit communities, and further balkanizes our processed and genetically modified nation-state. You wanna talk about war? Thisis the war.
It’s a cultural genocide that demolishes localism and roots, and replaces it with a counterfeit “culture” that quells the masses through “Popeye’s and porn” (what I call the profuse bread-and-circuses stupor). Meanwhile, Rome burns as the elites tweak their stock portfolios, foreigners displace natives, quislings celebrate their own demise, and the empire grows. Now Hornberger wants to throw gas on the fire. Yippee.
“I bring a campaign of principle to the party of principle,” he asserts. Libertarianism “really is the practical solution to the problems that besiege our society that both Democrats and Republicans have forced upon our nation.” Well, I guess that depends upon what are your principles and your understanding of history.
Hornberger references Mises’ repudiation of “planned chaos,” yet calls for the very plan that would double-down on the chaotic system of our already disunified and decaying “mixed-nation-state” (read: multiculturalism). Instead of supporting systems in which central planners coerce people into “economic lives contrary to their own choosing, central planning destroys the capital base and creates economic randomness that eventually ends in killing prosperity.” These are the death knells of culture and the middle class.
Mises said that prosperity and liberty must work in concert with what he called the “nationality principle,” which “includes only the rejection of every overlordship; it demands self-determination, autonomy.” In other words, not a political mixed-nation-state that has “aggravate[d] artificially the friction” that comes from different groups living together. Not an interventionist unitary state based upon “democratic subjugation,” where there is aggrieved minority rule over a national majority (a la anti-whiteness and the Victim Pyramid, Inc.) within inorganic borders.
The polyglot of peoples “involuntarily bound together by arbitrary political ties,” as described by Salerno, already now fosters a “bitter struggle for control of the state apparatus, and the creation of mutual and deep-seated distrust and hatred,” as well as “state-sanctioned physical violence,” and the demographic replacement hasn’t even yet reached its zenith. Buckle up, folks.
Hornberger continues, “The only system that is consistent with religious principles and free-market principles is an open-border, free-trade, open-immigration system.” Even though Hornberger is a Christian, I don’t think I’ll be taking faith advice or laissez-faire talking points from a dude who claims America has a “heritage of open borders.”
Hornberger simply doesn’t take into account human nature. As Mises rightly wrote, “The worker and the consumer are the same person. … Descent, language, education, religion, mentality, family bonds, and social environment tie the worker in such a way that he does not choose the place and the branch of his work merely with regard to height of wage rates.” People simply have allegiances that transcend the economy.
Moreover, Hornberger relies on historical revisionism. His “heritage” remark is steeped in the “nation of immigrants” mythos, which is “an ingenious narrative crafted in the last 50 years to undermine traditional American political institutions,” states historian Brion McClanahan.
Maybe, just maybe, Hornberger would have a wobbly leg to stand on if self-determination and decentralization hadn’t lost in 1865. And then just 10 years later, the US Supreme Court hadn’t ruled that immigration would be a federal (not a state) issue, opening the door for the polyglot to eventually propagate.
But remember, up until recently America has always had varying degrees of limited immigration and quotasfor particular peoples coming from particular places and with a particular faith and with particular skills. Even for the 20 million who entered through Ellis Island from 1880 to 1920, there were restrictions, exclusions, requirements, tests, and impassioned native reaction to every foot that stepped upon US soil. That is our heritage.
Even the early British colonists had to obtain a charter from the British Crown before setting sail across the great pond, and of course, if they couldn’t cut it, they left (as did many of the immigrants who came through Ellis Island). And as paloeolibertarian Ilana Mercer points out, “Not even the woke Wikipedia denies that, ‘Nearly all colonies and, later, states in the United States, were settled by migration from’ one colony to another, with ‘foreign immigration’ generally playing ‘a minor role after the first initial settlements.'”
“In other words, population growth was organic, a result of the settlers themselves multiplying and being fruitful, not of a flood of immigrants.” Huh, turns out Murica’s not the supposed the doormat of the world after all. This should be obvious to anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of human history, which continually hammers home the fact that homogeneity promotes peace and order.
“Contemporary libertarians often assume, mistakenly, that individuals are bound to each other by the nexus of the market exchange,” wrote the “Godfather of Libertarianism” Murray Rothbard in 1994. “They forget that everyone is necessarily born into a family, a language, and a culture.”
“In contrast to many modern libertarians who view individuals as atomistic beings who lack emotional affinities and spiritual bonds with selected fellow humans,” Salerno explains, “Mises affirms the reality of the nation as ‘an organic entity.'” In GDP We Trust does not a nation make.
Although, Mises did observe that political and cultural immersion can sometimes occur “if the immigrants come not all at once but little by little, so that the assimilation process among the early immigrants is already completed or at least already under way when the newcomers arrive.” In fact, Mises said that Chinese immigrants would’ve “achieve[d] domination in their new home” in the Western states of America “if legislation had not restricted their immigration in time.”
But assimilation and any residual chance at unity all went out the window with the progressive 1952 Immigration Act, the even more identity-crushing 1965 Immigration Act, and the nail in the coffin Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Oh yeah, let’s not forget H1B visas, DACA, and other assorted polyglot schemes. Demographics are destiny, as they say.
In the case of Virginia, the once-great state in which I was born and raised, the New York Times admits that it was demographics that turned the Old Dominion from red to blue. Hell, even California used to be a “conservative” stronghold and immigration put an end to that, and that’s according to the LA Times. Organic it is not.
Hornberger told Woods that his strategy is to win the primary here in North Carolina – my home of 20 years, the birthplace of my three sons, and from where my paternal grandfather and five out of six of his Confederate ancestors hailed. Hornberger plans to target the Tar Heel State’s pathetically large immigrant population (both Yankee and beyond), but not me. My roots and my ancestors’ sacrifice for self-determination and home mean nothing to him.
My children are already political and social refugees in their own damn home by virtue of demographic replacement and the statist and crony-capitalist structures that undergird it. It’s despotic. With ever-vanishing freedoms and an increasing majority rule by the increasingly angry aggrieved minorities, my sons are already marginalized.
As Mises remarked, even if a member of a national minority “be a citizen with full rights … in truth he is politically without rights, a second-class citizen, a pariah.” What would be the point of all this unfettered trade and movement in a subsequent “polyglot” territory if my children are pariahs? How is that liberty?
Hornberger plays the emotivism game, taking the illogical leap that America’s immigration quotas actually contributed to the Jewish holocaust – a favorite guilt-inducing, self-censorship ploy of the open-borders crowd. Predictably, he also cites Emma Lazarus’ progressive poem engraved upon the Statue of Liberty as part of his defense.
Odd that a libertarian like Hornberger would be touting the collectivist rants of a Georgist like Lazarus. Yet, he promulgates the refugee racket and its thousands upon thousands of “asylum seekers” who take NGO-funded and sometimes even government-subsidized international flights and continually pour into the land of statist milk and honey and social-justice suckers. It’s all a freedom-crushing scam of displacement, plunder, and power.
If this is what Horberger’s selling as “liberty,” I want absolutely no part of it. Zilch. Zero. Nihil. Or maybe I should say, “Nada.”
I have taken to heart his article entitled “A Lesson In Dissent.” So, this is my leaflet of resistance. I am the “Other” America, and I say “No!” to Bumper’s open-borders blueprint for disaster.
Originally published at DissidentMama.net
About the author
Dissident Mama is a recovering feminist-socialist-atheist, a graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and a retired mainstream journalist turned domesticated belle and rabble-rousing rhetorician. She manages her blog at dissidentmama.net